9.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Velikiy Novgorod.
10. On 27 March 2004 he signed a military service contract. The contract signed by the applicant was a standard two-page form stating, in particular, that he “undertook to serve under the conditions provided for by law”.
11.  At the material time the applicant was serving as a radio intelligence operator (оперативный дежурный группы боевого управления в составе оперативной группы радиоэлектронной разведки) in military unit no. 41480. Equivalent posts in his unit were held by servicewomen and he was often replaced in his duties by female personnel.
12.  On 30 September 2005 the applicant’s wife, Ms Z., gave birth to their third child. On the same day a court granted her petition for divorce.
13.  On 6 October 2005 the applicant and Ms Z. entered into an agreement under which their three children would live with the applicant and Ms Z. would pay maintenance for them. The agreement was certified by a notary.
14.  According to the applicant, several days later Ms Z. left for St Petersburg.
15.  On 11 October 2005 the applicant asked the head of his military unit for three years’ parental leave. On 12 October 2005 the head of the military unit rejected his request because three years’ parental leave could be granted only to female military personnel. The applicant was allowed to take three months’ leave. However, on 23 November 2005 he was recalled to duty.
16.   The applicant challenged the decision of 23 November 2005 before a court. On 9 March 2006 the Military Court of the Pushkin Garrison annulled the decision and upheld the applicant’s right to the remaining 39 working days of his three months’ leave. On 17 April 2006 the Military Court of the Leningradskiy Command quashed the judgment and rejected the applicant’s claims.
17.  Meanwhile, on 30 November 2005, the applicant brought proceedings against his military unit claiming three years’ parental leave. He submitted that he was the sole carer for his three children. He referred, in particular, to section 10(9) of the Military Service Act (see paragraph 47 below).
18.  During the hearing before the Military Court of the Pushkin Garrison the representatives of the military unit submitted that the applicant had not proved that he was the sole carer for his children. It was impossible for the applicant, who was serving in the army, studying at a University and participating in several sets of judicial proceedings, to take care of his children alone. There was evidence that Ms Z. and other people were helping him. The children were therefore not left without maternal care. The military unit’s representatives also drew the court’s attention to some inconsistencies in the applicant’s submissions and the documents produced by him. For example, the children’s address indicated in the notarial agreement was incorrect, Ms Z.’s employment contract was not registered as required by law, there was no divorce stamp in Ms Z.’s passport, and the applicant had not applied for child allowances or sued Ms Z. for her failure to pay child maintenance. In their opinion, the applicant’s divorce was a sham with the aim of evading military service and receiving additional benefits from his military unit.
19.   The court examined Ms Z.’s petition for divorce in which she stated that she had been living separately from the applicant since September 2005 and that she considered any further marital relationship impossible. It also examined the judicial decision confirming the divorce, the notarial agreement according to which the children were to live with the applicant and Ms Z.’s employment contract signed in St Petersburg. It also studied the record of a hearing held on 27 February 2006 in an unrelated civil case, from which it appeared that Ms Z. had represented the applicant.
20.  The applicant stated that he and his children lived in Novgorod together with Ms Z.’s parents. Although Ms Z. helped him occasionally with the children (for example she had done babysitting for the youngest child on 31 January 2006 while he attended a hearing), it was he who took everyday care of them. Ms Z. did not pay child maintenance because her income was too low. Ms Z. had indeed represented him at the hearing of 27 February 2006, which concerned a claim lodged jointly by the couple before the divorce. Ms Z. had agreed to continue her assistance until the end of the proceedings.
21.  Ms Z. testified that she lived in St Petersburg, while the children lived with the applicant in Novgorod. She did not participate in the care of the children. She did not pay child maintenance because her salary was minimal.
22.  Ms Z.’s father stated that after the divorce his daughter had left for St Petersburg, while the applicant and the children continued to live together with him and his wife in the flat belonging to them. Although his daughter occasionally talked to the children over the phone, she did not participate in their care. The applicant was the sole carer for the children. He took them to school and to the doctor’s, cooked for them, took them for walks and supervised their education.
23.  Ms Z.’s employer testified that Ms Z. worked for her in St Petersburg. She knew that employment contracts had to be registered. She had attempted to register Ms Z.’s employment contract with the Tax Authority. The Tax Authority had refused to register the contract, informing her that she had to register it with the Town Administration. However, at the Town Administration she had been told that it was the Tax Authority which was responsible for registering employment contracts. As she had found herself in a vicious circle, she had stopped her fruitless attempts to register the contract. Ms Z. had returned to work two weeks after the childbirth. She knew that Ms Z.’s children lived with their father in Novgorod, but she did not know further details about Ms Z.’s relations with her ex-husband or her children. A couple of times she had heard Ms Z. talking to her eldest child over the phone.
24.  The teacher of the applicant’s second child stated that in September 2005 both the applicant and Ms Z. would take the child to school. However, after the birth of the third child and the divorce it was always the applicant who had brought the child to school in the morning and picked him up in the evening. It was the applicant who had come to the school parties. In reply to her questions about his mother, the child had said that his mother had left for St Petersburg where she was working. She thought that the applicant was a good father; the child evidently loved him. At the same time, he never spoke about his mother.
25.  The children’s doctor testified that on 6 October 2005 Ms Z. had brought the youngest child for an examination. From 1 November 2005 onwards it was always the applicant who had taken the children to the doctor’s. The children were healthy and good care was taken of them.
26.  On 14 March 2006 the Military Court of the Pushkin Garrison dismissed the applicant’s claim for three years’ parental leave as having no basis in domestic law. The court held that only female military personnel were entitled to three years’ parental leave, while male military personnel had no such entitlement even in those cases where their children were left without maternal care. In such cases a serviceman was entitled either to an early termination of his service for family reasons, or to three months’ leave. The applicant had made use of the second opportunity.
27.  The court further held that, in any event, the applicant had failed to prove that he was the sole carer for his children and that they lacked maternal care. It followed from the evidence examined at the hearing that even after the divorce the applicant and Ms Z. had continued their marital relationship. They lived together, both took care of their children and defended the interests of their family. The applicant’s allegations to the contrary were therefore false and aimed at misleading the court. It was essential that Ms Z. had not been deprived of parental authority. She was not in any other way prevented from taking care of her children and it was irrelevant whether they lived with her or not.
28.  The applicant appealed, alleging that the refusal to grant him three years’ parental leave had violated the principle of equality between men and women guaranteed by the Constitution. He further submitted that the factual findings made by the first-instance court were irreconcilable with the evidence examined at the hearing.
29.  On 27 April 2006 the Military Court of the Leningradskiy Command upheld the judgment on appeal. It did not examine the applicant’s allegation that the factual findings made by the first-instance court had been incorrect. Instead it held that under domestic law “male military personnel were not in any circumstances entitled to parental leave”. It further added that the applicant’s “reflections on equality between men and women ... [could] not serve as a basis for quashing the first-instance judgment, which [was] correct in substance”.
30.  While the court proceedings were pending the applicant was disciplined several times for systematic absences from his place of work.
31.  By order of 24 October 2006 the head of military unit no. 41480 granted parental leave to the applicant until 30 September 2008, the third birthday of his youngest son. On 25 October 2006 the applicant received financial aid in the amount of 200,000 Russian roubles (RUB), equivalent to approximately 5,900 euros (EUR). In a letter of 9 November 2006 the head of military unit no. 41480 informed the applicant that the financial aid was granted to him “in view of [his] difficult family situation, the necessity of taking care of three minor children and the absence of other sources of income”.
32.  On 8 December 2006 the Military Court of the Pushkin Garrison issued a decision in which it criticised the head of military unit no. 41480 for granting the applicant three years’ parental leave and thereby disregarding the judgment of 27 April 2006 in which it had been found that the applicant was not entitled to such leave. The court drew the attention of the head of the military unit to the unlawfulness of his order.
33.  On 11 August 2008 the applicant applied to the Constitutional Court, claiming that the provisions of the Military Service Act concerning the three-year parental leave were incompatible with the equality clause in the Constitution.
34.  On 15 January 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected his application. The relevant parts of its judgment read as follows:
“2.1  ... military service is a special type of public service which ensures the defence of the country and the security of the State, it is therefore performed in the public interest. Persons engaged in military service exercise constitutionally important functions and therefore possess a special legal status which is based on the necessity for a citizen of the Russian Federation to perform his duty and obligation in order to protect the Fatherland.
When establishing a special legal status for military personnel, the federal legislature is entitled, within its discretionary powers, to set up limitations on their civil rights and freedoms and to assign special duties...
... by signing a military service contract a citizen ... voluntarily chooses a professional activity which entails, firstly, limitations on his civil rights and freedoms inherent in this type of public service, and, secondly, performance of duties to ensure the defence of the country and the security of the State. Accordingly, military personnel undertake to abide by the statutory requirements limiting their rights and freedoms and imposing on them special public obligations.
... by voluntarily choosing this type of service citizens agree to the conditions and limitations related to the acquired legal status. Therefore, the imposition by the federal legislature of limitations on the rights and freedoms of such citizens is not in itself incompatible with [the Constitution] and is in accordance with ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention no. 111 of 25 June 1958, which provides that any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements thereof shall not be deemed to be discrimination (Article 1 § 2). 2.2  Under section 11(13) of [the Military Service Act] parental leave is granted to female military personnel in accordance with the procedure specified in federal laws and regulations of the Russian Federation. A similar provision is contained in Article 32 § 5 of the Regulations on military service, which also provides that during parental leave a servicewoman retains her position and military rank.
A serviceman under contract is entitled to leave of up to three months if his wife dies in delivery or if he is bringing up a child or children under 14 years old (handicapped children under 16 years old) left without maternal care (in the event of the mother’s death, withdrawal of parental authority, lengthy illness or other situations where his children have no maternal care). The purpose of such leave is to give the serviceman a reasonable opportunity to arrange for the care of his child and, depending on the outcome, to decide whether he wishes to continue the military service. If the serviceman decides to take care of his child himself, he is entitled to early termination of his service for family reasons...
The law in force does not give a serviceman the right to three years’ parental leave. Accordingly, servicemen under contract are prohibited from combining the performance of their military duties with parental leave. This prohibition is based, firstly, on the special legal status of the military, and, secondly, on the constitutionally important aims justifying limitations on human rights and freedoms in connection with the necessity to create appropriate conditions for efficient professional activity of servicemen who are fulfilling their duty to defend the Fatherland.
Owing to the specific demands of military service, non-performance of military duties by military personnel en masse must be excluded as it might cause detriment to the public interests protected by law. Therefore, the fact that servicemen under contract are not entitled to parental leave cannot be regarded as a breach of their constitutional rights or freedoms, including their right to take care of, and bring up, children guaranteed by Article 38 § 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Moreover, this limitation is justified by the voluntary nature of the military service contract.
By granting, on an exceptional basis, the right to parental leave to servicewomen only, the legislature took into account, firstly, the limited participation of women in military service and, secondly, the special social role of women associated with motherhood. [Those considerations] are compatible with Article 38 § 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the legislature’s decision cannot be regarded as breaching the principles of equality of human rights and freedoms or equality of rights of men and women, as guaranteed by Article 19 §§ 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
It follows from the above that section 11(13) of [the Military Service Act], granting the right to parental leave to female military personnel only, does not breach the applicant’s constitutional rights ... 2.4  As servicemen having minor children are not entitled to parental leave, they are also not entitled to receive monthly child-care allowances payable to those who take care of children under the age of a year and a half...”
The Constitutional Court concluded that the provisions challenged by the applicant were compatible with the Constitution.
35.  On an unspecified date in March 2011 the Representative of Russia at the European Court of Human Rights asked the local military prosecutor’s office to conduct an inquiry into the applicant’s family situation. In particular, he asked the prosecutor to find out where the applicant, Ms Z. and their children were currently living and whether Ms Z. paid child maintenance.
36.  According to the Government, the applicant was summoned to the prosecutor’s office for 30 or 31 March 2011. The applicant stated that he had not received any summons.
37.  As the applicant had failed to be present at the appointed time, the prosecutor decided to visit him at home. According to the applicant, the prosecutor arrived at his flat at 10 p.m. on 31 March 2011, waking up and frightening his children. The Government submitted that the prosecutor had visited the applicant at 9 p.m. and had remained for an hour.
38.  The prosecutor informed the applicant that he was conducting an inquiry at the request of the Representative of Russia at the European Court of Human Rights. He noted the residents of the flat. He then requested the applicant to produce a court judgment concerning child maintenance in respect of his youngest son. After the applicant had explained that the child maintenance had been fixed by a notarial agreement, the prosecutor requested a copy of that agreement. He warned the applicant that if he refused to produce the requested documents, his neighbours would be questioned.
39.  The applicant called his representative before the Court and, following her advice, refused to comply with the prosecutor’s orders or answer his further questions. He signed a written statement to that effect. The prosecutor immediately left.
40.  The prosecutor also questioned the applicant’s neighbours, who testified that the applicant and Ms Z. were living together.
41.  According to the Government, the inquiry established that the applicant and Ms Z. had remarried on 1 April 2008 and had had a fourth child on 5 August 2010. In December 2008 the applicant had terminated his military service for health reasons. The applicant and Ms Z. were currently living together with their four children and Ms Z.’s parents.